You are here

Announcements

All Kickstarter Backers: Please go to your Kickstarter account and update your emails.
We're trying to give you as much time as possible for the staged rollout of pre-Alpha.
Make sure you can log in, and make sure your email address is up to date.
Please make sure *@missingworldsmedia.com is set to Allowed or Not Junk in your email settings.

So as I'm sure everyone is aware, on Dec. 14, 2017, the laws that enforce free and fair data traffic over the internet will be repealed. While many people are spreading doomsday prophecies of providers taking advantage of this development to block certain websites altogether and restructuring the internet to a Cable TV-like format, that's still a very extreme scenario that would only come about in the very worst of possibilities.

However, I'm not posting here to rant about how bad this whole thing is, or to stir up a political debate over it. What I'm curious about at the moment is what this means for indie game developers, specifically those who are planning to launch and maintain MMORPGs in the future.

Of course, while research into this topic has shown me that the likelihood of the aforementioned worst-case scenario is low, at least at this early stage in time, the one thing that is most certain to happen is that ISPs will charge extra fees to any company that wishes to host its content online and send it to consumers. Many predict that these fees could become so high that smaller startup companies would no longer have a chance at even being able to create content, leaving only room for the larger corporations and silencing anyone else.

It goes without saying why this would be a concern for an MMO.

It's already expensive enough to maintain an MMO server as it is. With something like this, I personally have become scared that the FCC may have brought down a sudden death-blow to this and other similar projects that no one could have seen coming. Of course, I don't have all the facts, so maybe I could be missing some key details and the existance of CoT and other indie MMO projects aren't as threatened as it may seem.

I'm not so sure that they will start demanding direct payments from content providers to reach their customers in the first place, at least not for the first year or two. I think it will be more in line that with their next network upgrade if you don't pay them you stay on the old and slow network instead of the shiny new one.

I think the more visible/noticable changes will be on the consumer side, maybe even something like this:

Net Neutrality was a govt fix for problems that did not exist. Competition kept prices low before and it will afterwards.
we won't notice a thing.

To my understanding there is very few geographic areas (relatively speaking) that has actual competition within the ISP space, most areas are served by an effective monopoly or duopoly. That is that most people either has one good and maybe one serviceable option at best or they have to change address to change ISP.

Also isn't the FCC supposed to be somewhat pro-active in its regulation, that is to some degree anticipate problems and put in regulations before they become big.

In other countries, though, is there not a limit on bandwidth and/or data load, so it effectively costs more for our continental cousins?

I have essentially limitless download here. Sure, if you have an excessive use to the count of several Terabytes per month on one of the slower plans, you might get a call about it, but I don't sweat it if I want to reinstall a 100GB game on Steam or anything. I just hit download and go to bed.

That people in the US don't have this as a default is a travesty to me.

Also people in the US pay more for relatively worse service than most other places in the world. So much for keeping the prices down.
USA! USA! USA!

I live in the US and pay $34 a month for 40mbps, which is more than I actually need. That's cheap in my book. As someone else mentioned, competition will keep anything drastic from happening. Even areas with only 1 ISP aren't going to see a noticeable difference, if any. The public in general are making this out as an Armageddon scenario for some reason.

Because it'll throttle the internet. That's why it's viewed so negatively. Can't afford to pay the service providers so your site can get a good speed? Looks like you're S.O.L.

It's bad for the consumer, bad for sites on the net, especially smaller sites like this one, and only good for the corporations who will be getting paid or can pay. There's no good that can come of this. And I have yet to hear a favorable argument for it, where as you can find hundreds of arguments against that are well informed with citable sources.

Edit: you say you pay 34 dollars. How would you like to pay 20 for worse than you have now then hundreds of additional fees for getting the sites you like at good bandwidth? Want to use Netflix reasonably? Pay more. YouTube? Pay more. Steam? Pay more. Crunchy roll? Pay more. Cause that's what it'll do. It's just a way for those ISPs to squeeze more and more money from the consumers.

I agree with others and NN is an overblown issue. I'd rather vote with my wallet than try to vote some bad regulation/politician/law out anyday.

Ah yes, vote with your wallet. Which in some cases involves moving somewhere else. Good thing everyone is well off enough in the US to just up and move if they don't like things around them. And it's a good thing these companies don't do anything to try to lock people into contracts or anything. Or charge cancellation fees or anything. Good thing these companies are so altruistic and always do things for the customer. And definitely wouldn't work together in any way to drive up prices. I mean you could always go with some smaller kind of ISP... No wait there aren't any. Well someone could always start a new one to charge less and compete... No wait, they can't because the companies that are there own all the infrastructure. I mean unless they were already a super rich corporation.

At any rate you could vote with your wallet by just not having internet, I guess.

Edit: oh and don't forget that without net neutrality companies who own things that operate on the internet will need to pay to not have their services throttled. Like MMOs. Without net neutrality an ISP can decide they don't like people using their bandwidth for MMOs. So unless you the consumer and the company that owns the MMO fork over money it comes in at the worst connection possible. But yeah. Other than greedy corporations having a stranglehold on the entirety of the internet... It's no big deal. I mean it's not like they were doing shady crap like this before... Oh wait. They were. And did it until a government agency told them to stop. But I'm sure the companies have your best interests at heart.

Net neutrality is less than 3 years old. MMO's were fine before it and they'll be fine after it. All of these end-of-the-world scenarios people are afraid weren't here before net neutrality...why would they be after a 3 year hiatus?

Net Neutrality as a term was first coined in 2003 so... No. More than 3 years old.

"The term was coined by Columbia University media law professor Tim Wu in 2003, as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier, which was used to describe the role of telephone systems."

Wikipedia. And as soon as 2004 Comcast was unfairly throttling services.

So sure. If you're ok with folks in the states having to pay per site they use and having those sites and services having to pay the US ISPs so their services aren't coming through at a snails pace. Fine no big deal.

Net Neutrality as a term was first coined in 2003 so... No. More than 3 years old.
"The term was coined by Columbia University media law professor Tim Wu in 2003, as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier, which was used to describe the role of telephone systems."
Wikipedia. And as soon as 2004 Comcast was unfairly throttling services.
So sure. If you're ok with folks in the states having to pay per site they use and having those sites and services having to pay the US ISPs so their services aren't coming through at a snails pace. Fine no big deal.

I'm talking about when it was passed into law...not when it was thought up. "On February 26, 2015, the FCC ruled in favor of net neutrality by reclassifying broadband as a common carrier under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. On April 13, 2015, the FCC published the final rule on its new "Net Neutrality" regulations."

Alright, sure and before it was law ISPs could decide to slow down services or sites as they liked (which they did). It's nice to have laws that stop corporations from running wild and unregulated. And getting rid of those laws would be no big deal? What, you think that these greedy corporations won't use that as an excuse to try and milk as much money from people as they possibly can? Do you really want to trust these corporations to act in their customers best interests? That they'll be fair?

Alright, sure and before it was law ISPs could decide to slow down services or sites as they liked (which they did). It's nice to have laws that stop corporations from running wild and unregulated. And getting rid of those laws would be no big deal? What, you think that these greedy corporations won't use that as an excuse to try and milk as much money from people as they possibly can? Do you really want to trust these corporations to act in their customers best interests? That they'll be fair?

I trust corporations and people in general over the gov't any day of the week because of Capitalism and competition. The gov't has given me no evidence that it is responsible or honest...and it is a whole lot more potentially dangerous than any corporation. All I'm saying is it's not the end of the world and all those monsters you say are coming out to rip people financially apart...aren't. It's not going to happen. Competition, by nature, creates equilibrium. Not the government, it's not some benevolent, altruistic being. It's made up of a lot of power hungry, greedy people that have the ability to destroy America more than any corporation can.

Ah yes. Good ol' capitalism. That's why the US pays less for healthcare.

You'd put your trust more in a giant thing that's built to make money than in the government to which is only as broken as it is because these same corporations can throw their money at it to try and bend it to their wills. Seems like there's a root cause to both these things. Damn if only we could figure it out.

In other countries, though, is there not a limit on bandwidth and/or data load, so it effectively costs more for our continental cousins?

Not really, a great effect from LLU being a requirement if you have high enough market power.

Personally though I get 250/100 for about $20, though that's from a centrally negotiated price by a fairly large apartment association and not LLU.

The biggest thing that is holding back proper competition in the US the that every ISP need their own infrastructure, which means there is huge barrier to entry and that every geographic area has a practical limit on competitors (which includes every technology that can provide "internet").

Government tends to provide a few things: increased costs due to regulations or limited competition, and ever increasing, bloated bureaucracy which is less and less responsive to the people and more and more interested in sustaining itself.

The cities/municipalities are the ones who sign agreements with various cable companies that tend to result in only one option for high-speed in many locations. This was less a concern when it was just about television broadcasting, but much more of a concern now that those same companies are handling the internet. While most places may have options, they are typically at lower speeds and lower capacity. The answer to that is for the local governments to stop signing the exclusivity agreements. If you cable company is charging way too much, then a competing cable company will see that and move in and start getting people's business if the existing company doesn't change to better match the market.

When you have some sort of backroom dealing between companies then the local or state government should step in and keep that from happening. Other than that, they should keep their mitts out of it so that internet providers don't become essentially another department of motor vehicles or IRS office where they obviously could care less if they help you or not. If you've ever waiting in line for an hour or more just to spend 3-4 minutes renewing your license, you should know what I'm talking about. "What about all you folks sitting back there chatting - can't you help move this along?"

Cyclops wrote:
Net Neutrality was a govt fix for problems that did not exist. Competition kept prices low before and it will afterwards.
we won't notice a thing.
To my understanding there is very few geographic areas (relatively speaking) that has actual competition within the ISP space, most areas are served by an effective monopoly or duopoly. That is that most people either has one good and maybe one serviceable option at best or they have to change address to change ISP.
Also isn't the FCC supposed to be somewhat pro-active in its regulation, that is to some degree anticipate problems and put in regulations before they become big.

I can verify that in the area I currently live there is one single internet provider. There's no going with the cheaper options. There's no "voting with my wallet." I either pay them however much they feel like charging me, or I don't get to use the internet.

Just relax as this could change the entirety of the internet as we know it. Great plan. How about you write your congressman? And tell him or her you don't want an end to net neutrality. I'm pretty sure there's sites set up that can tell you who to contact and how. Get involved people!

And as for how this may affect our little game that could? Smaller sites and services will be hit hardest by the loss of net neutrality. For US ISPs will charge those people also to allow their services to be provided at a good bandwidth. Which may end up with a lot of sites either not being able to be accessed in the US, or being able to be accessed exceedingly slowly.

So if you lose net neutrality have fun downloading this game in KBS, or less. And have fun trying to play it when the connection is laggy as heck and drops all the time.

Cause if a corporation can make money off of something they will. Charge the customer to use the service at a good bandwidth, charge the provider of that service to host at a reasonable bandwidth. Money money money.

Of course it won't happen overnight and may take a year or two before they start changing anything (at least more than they currently have done) but they will do it sooner or later and because they have a mostly captive market and there is little We, the consumers, can actually do unless you're ready to live with severely slow of even without internet.

Putting the "enforcement" on the FTC is not a good idea either since they can only act once damage has been established and they can only act on a case by case basis, nor can they put any policies or regulations into place they can only enforce that companies follow existing laws.

Cyclops wrote:

Wells its gonna happen so no use getting all uppity about it.
Frankly I think the drama is much ado about nothing. relax folks and learn to love life.

Yes the vote will happen and yes it will be voted in favor of a repeal but I'm almost certain there will be a lawsuit to stop it going into effect since, afaik, they have to show compelling reasons to repeal it, and so far the only real reason they can point to is that following regulations is "onerous".
As for investments/expansions I'd rather believe what they say to their investors since they are bound by law to be truthful there.
Innovation? What kind of innovation have they brought to market, outside of creative ways to come up with new fees for their customers without increasing costs for themselves that is?

Even though I don't live in the US I do have an aversion to letting corporations do effectively whatever they want. Capitalism, or rather free market, only works when there is actual competition but competition is "bad" in Capitalism since it reduces profits.

Corporations also never have your best interests in mind. Only theirs. And their interests is to get as many people to part with as much of their money as possible. Sometimes in order to fulfill this desire they will do something you like.

Corporations also never have your best interests in mind. Only theirs. And their interests is to get as many people to part with as much of their money as possible. Sometimes in order to fulfill this desire they will do something you like.

The question is, who is worse? Government or corporations? Answer; Government, usually.
Although often it's the same people in charge of both...

Just relax as this could change the entirety of the internet as we know it. Great plan. How about you write your congressman? And tell him or her you don't want an end to net neutrality. I'm pretty sure there's sites set up that can tell you who to contact and how. Get involved people!
YOU can make a difference!
YOU can be a hero!

I do not believe in your end of the world scenario. The Net was fine before NN and it will be fine after.
The less govt control over the free internet, the better.
and the less politics brought into the gaming world, the better

So the more corporate control over the net the better? Is that what you're saying cause that's the alternative.

And the net wasn't fine before NN. US ISPs were throttling traffic from certain programs and it took this government agency to step in and make them stop.

P2P sharing programs, blocked access to Vonage (whatever that is), limiting access to FaceTime, and slowing down YouTube and Netflix. That's just from Wikipedia and those were only those that were found out about. (Or suspected in the last case)

With it no longer being enforced as a law how long do you think it'll take before these companies start carving up your internet? Your ISP dictating what sites you can and can not go to? What is the upside of Net Neutrality going away?

It won't be the end of the world. But it'll be the end of the internet as we know it.

Keep in mind, just Net Neutrality wasn't codified as a regulation doesn't mean it didn't exist prior to 2015. As I understood, the concept was there because at first the Internet wasn't as vital in the early days as it is now. When it became it more mainstream for everyday use and for media consumption that was when ISPs moved to throttle other streaming services (Comcast vs Netflix). Also, Regulatory Capture is a thing: meaning an organization that was once in place to protect the public is subverted to represent commercial/political interest. It's like making the Joker as the Chief of the GCPD. It also explains the mess were in now. In short, the repeal of NN could hurt innovation, consumer choice and free-speech.

With that in mind, I do not see this as a good thing. In regard to CoT, it could spell doom for the game. Imagine if NCSoft decides it wants to launch CoH2; it has enough money to work with Comcast/Verizon/etc to be included in their "MMO Fastlanes". MWM will not have the money, so it gets throttled to be unplayable. That means all the startup spiritual successors: CoT, SoH, VO and H&V, will not be an option. We'll have to play CoH2. Let's just hope NCSoft doesn't take a page from EA and add loot boxes to recoup their ISP expenses.

Keep in mind, just Net Neutrality wasn't codified as a regulation doesn't mean it didn't exist prior to 2015. As I understood, the concept was there because at first the Internet wasn't as vital in the early days as it is now. When it became it more mainstream for everyday use and for media consumption that was when ISPs moved to throttle other streaming services (Comcast vs Netflix). Also, Regulatory Capture is a thing: meaning an organization that was once in place to protect the public is subverted to represent commercial/political interest. It's like making the Joker as the Chief of the GCPD. It also explains the mess were in now. In short, the repeal of NN could hurt innovation, consumer choice and free-speech.
With that in mind, I do not see this as a good thing. In regard to CoT, it could spell doom for the game. Imagine if NCSoft decides it wants to launch CoH2; it has enough money to work with Comcast/Verizon/etc to be included in their "MMO Fastlanes". MWM will not have the money, so it gets throttled to be unplayable. That means all the startup spiritual successors: CoT, SoH, VO and H&V, will not be an option. We'll have to play CoH2. Let's just hope NCSoft doesn't take a page from EA and add loot boxes to recoup their ISP expenses.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. Your comparison to the Joker is a gross misrepresentation. Removing NN would not hurt free-speech because the internet is not a right. It is a privilege of society. And if NCSoft wanted to launch a CoH2 why shouldn't they be able to? That's how things work in the business world; if you don't have the money to buy something you can't buy it.

Project_Hero wrote:
Just relax as this could change the entirety of the internet as we know it. Great plan. How about you write your congressman? And tell him or her you don't want an end to net neutrality. I'm pretty sure there's sites set up that can tell you who to contact and how. Get involved people!
YOU can make a difference!
YOU can be a hero!
I do not believe in your end of the world scenario. The Net was fine before NN and it will be fine after.
The less govt control over the free internet, the better.
and the less politics brought into the gaming world, the better

It was a different time then.

Right now, there was nothing stopping internet companies from getting us better internet speeds than we have now, but they haven't. So, there would be no reason for them to not force you to pay more for less.

I for instance already pay more for my internet, than they advertised. I only had one option really (if I didn't want a limit on my usage), and it was advertised for such and such price. So, I called them up, and they gave me a different priced than advertised. Why? Because that advertised price they showed, was only for the big cities. So I had to pay more than double the advertised price for less than advertised speed. :p

Working for a big corporation, I can also tell you, it's not a matter of if they will screw you over, it's win. There are exceptions to the rules, but I doubt we'll find it in internet providers :p

Little Red Ragnarok wrote:
Keep in mind, just Net Neutrality wasn't codified as a regulation doesn't mean it didn't exist prior to 2015. As I understood, the concept was there because at first the Internet wasn't as vital in the early days as it is now. When it became it more mainstream for everyday use and for media consumption that was when ISPs moved to throttle other streaming services (Comcast vs Netflix). Also, Regulatory Capture is a thing: meaning an organization that was once in place to protect the public is subverted to represent commercial/political interest. It's like making the Joker as the Chief of the GCPD. It also explains the mess were in now. In short, the repeal of NN could hurt innovation, consumer choice and free-speech.
With that in mind, I do not see this as a good thing. In regard to CoT, it could spell doom for the game. Imagine if NCSoft decides it wants to launch CoH2; it has enough money to work with Comcast/Verizon/etc to be included in their "MMO Fastlanes". MWM will not have the money, so it gets throttled to be unplayable. That means all the startup spiritual successors: CoT, SoH, VO and H&V, will not be an option. We'll have to play CoH2. Let's just hope NCSoft doesn't take a page from EA and add loot boxes to recoup their ISP expenses.
I'm sorry but I have to disagree. Your comparison to the Joker is a gross misrepresentation. Removing NN would not hurt free-speech because the internet is not a right. It is a privilege of society. And if NCSoft wanted to launch a CoH2 why shouldn't they be able to? That's how things work in the business world; if you don't have the money to buy something you can't buy it.

Ah yes. Removing a platform for free speech couldn't possibly hurt free speech. How it will hurt free speech is that the companies could restrict access to sites they don't agree with on a political or moral level. What if your ISP decided they didn't want folks browsing porn with their service? Pop. There it goes. Nothing you can do about it unless there's a competitor in your area if not... I dunno move?

They could restrict social media, or sites that are more left or right leaning than they'd like. It'd be like browsing the net with a grandparent looking over your shoulder the entire time.

Edit: Holy moly, me and Brand X on the same side of a discussion!? Someone check the temperature in hell! :P

jtpaull wrote:
Little Red Ragnarok wrote:
Ah yes. Removing a platform for free speech couldn't possibly hurt free speech. How it will hurt free speech is that the companies could restrict access to sites they don't agree with on a political or moral level. What if your ISP decided they didn't want folks browsing porn with their service? Pop. There it goes. Nothing you can do about it unless there's a competitor in your area if not... I dunno move?
They could restrict social media, or sites that are more left or right leaning than they'd like. It'd be like browsing the net with a grandparent looking over your shoulder the entire time.
Edit: Holy moly, me and Brand X on the same side of a discussion!? Someone check the temperature in hell! :P

Free speech. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. Your comparison to the Joker is a gross misrepresentation. Removing NN would not hurt free-speech because the internet is not a right. It is a privilege of society.

The current chairman of the FFC was Verizon lawyer, and the only parties who seem to benefit from the repeal of NN is the major telecomm company; almost every other industry and the majority of the people support it staying in place. What's he's doing is for the interest of the telecomm companies. That's what regulatory capture is.

You are free to believe that the Internet is a privilege. Some would argue that is should be a basic right in today's world, but I digress. However, something to think about: if you find yourself in a position where you can't afford to access the Internet at all (No stream video/games, no telecommuting, no email, no online job searching), how well do you think you can function in your daily life?

jtpaull wrote:

And if NCSoft wanted to launch a CoH2 why shouldn't they be able to? That's how things work in the business world; if you don't have the money to buy something you can't buy it.

And if NCSoft sees CoT as a competitive threat and cozy up to the major ISPs who will then throttle traffic to MWM servers, then we can't play CoT. It also means that when NCSoft pulls the plug on the COH2, the next spiritual successor might not even get off the ground if they can't afford to pay to be in ISP fast lanes.

Another thing to think about: Would you be okay if the ISP can say "You can't play CoT, go play CoH2"?

No Project Hero, this will NOT be the end of the internet as we know it.
NCSOFT will NOT push competitors off the net.
You and your little dog too are perfectly safe. You are not going to notice a thing. Geeze Louise.

The drama in this thread!
No Project Hero, this will NOT be the end of the internet as we know it.
NCSOFT will NOT push competitors off the net.
You and your little dog too are perfectly safe. You are not going to notice a thing. Geeze Louise.

There's good reason to be worried.

Ever ask, why they would want it repealed, if they were never planning to make more money somehow, use it to mess with competition or screw with your speeds to other sites?

They didn't pay lobbyists, so they couldn't make more money. Corporations don't care about people or customers. Even they've admitted the tax breaks they could be getting, won't be used on employees. They're go to the business and shareholders. :p

The drama in this thread!
No Project Hero, this will NOT be the end of the internet as we know it.
NCSOFT will NOT push competitors off the net.
You and your little dog too are perfectly safe. You are not going to notice a thing. Geeze Louise.

I'd like to know what makes you so certain. People with more insight and data on this than me are worried about it and if they're worried knowing what they know then we should be too. So what on earth makes you think giving corporations free reign to carve up the net, set bandwidths as they like, and throttle and strangle any sites or services they don't like is not going to change things on our merry ol' internet?

You'll pay for slow internet. Then pay to get Facebook faster, then pay to get YouTube faster, then pay to get Netflix faster, then pay to get Google faster, pay to play games online at reasonable rates, pay to allow discord to work, and so on and so on. You'll be paying the same as you do now, or more, for much much less.

Tell me please, with your infinite wisdom, why on earth losing net neutrality won't have all the negative effects not having it enforced by law had and then moreso on top of that?

Cause corporations aren't happy just getting some of the money. They want all of the money. And they will try to squeeze and twist every last cent they can from you and if you can't see that, if you think they're doing any of this for their customers, you are blind and wrong. I get that folks in the states don't have much trust in your government, but thinking corporations have your best interests at heart is complete lunacy.

Really, and i don't want to begin a politic polemic here, but USA should change its president... He's really frightening :/ and he's giving bad ideas to the big commercial groups :/ He doesn't image his influence on the world...
But, to focus on the discussion :) I don't think internet will really change. It's, by now, the first way people can exchance, learn, communicate, find something, buy, etc. So, every people will stan dup if there was something to lose on the internet. But, that's the big corporations which will have an influence on that thing at the end.

I absolutely know they'll abuse this, but it will take some years as they test the water and see what they can get away with, so CoT's launch should be uninterrupted, at least.

Now, on to the... eh... I don't want to say debate. It's a forum. I'm not sure that word applies. =P So... onto the ramblings. Here's what I got so far (aka here's my ramblings):

Cons: They could throttle sites that have opinions they don't like to suppress free speech. They could throttle sites that are competitors to other companies individuals in the ISP have stocks in. They could throttle to prevent start-ups to avoid new competition in any existing business type. They could prevent any and all innovation by preventing new innovations/business types. They could over-charge internet-based companies for the higher access speed, if they wanted to go at it from that angle instead of the consumer angle, and make internet companies impossible to start up from a cost standpoint, to prevent competition. Recognizing that a corporation that operates as a competition-free monopoly that has as much authority in a particular area as any government does, then this is essentially a big government move, as it concentrates more power in fewer hands.

Pros: Rebranding words to mean different things (right vs privilege. online speech doesn't count as free speech, oh but money somehow does, free speech is what I define it as so you can't be mad when I take yours. Oh, I also have the power to decide what's a privilege). Government should stay out of business and let businesses compete (but there's no competition. that's kind of the point. and those in the government that support competition-suppressing exclusive or no-bid contracts are just as likely to be the self-styled "small government, pro competition" folks as not. Funny, that). Telling everyone to calm down because there's no possible way corporations will abuse their authority (do I even need to say it?). This wasn't much of a problem back when internet wasn't as essential and there was more competition, therefor it couldn't be a problem now that internet is essential and there's not competition (what?).

It's obvious which side I'm on. =P

My Suggestion: Create a "net neutral" certification for companies that self-enforce net neutrality. Alternatively, create a new company straight-up called Net Neutral that does this. I know I'd be willing to put up with a lot to know that if I start up a web site, I don't have to pay extra for it to work, and to know that I can visit sites that can't afford that as well. This could slowly push the companies that caused this repeal out of business, as it should be. I don't have the cash to do this, but there are several hundred billionaires in the country that do, and they could make a tidy profit in the long run when the companies responsible for all this start begging to be bought at a discount.
Problem: No-competition contracts.
Solution: Start in small towns around big cities. Encircle, Approach, Overtake, pressure to prevent contract renewal, advertise which apartments/etc only allow non-net-neutral companies on premises, resulting in huge loss of business for said apartments if they don't change. Repeat ad infinitum. Is it mean-spirited in its aggressiveness? Yes. Is it more mean and aggressive than what these companies are doing right now? No. Will the companies pushing for an end to net neutrality have the business savvy to compete with net neutral companies? I highly doubt it. Do they even know what the word "competition" means anymore? They may just find out the hard way.

I'm going to be spreading this suggestion around a bit after the vote.

It seems to me that the effects of losing net neutrality (on MMOs, especially CoT) would depend heavily on whether any throttling is "on" by default. It also depends on who has a business motive in doing such throttling - is it my own ISP? ...the ISP of the internet resource I want to use? ...the backbone providers in the middle?

Consequences of throttling being "on" by default, or used as an anti-competitive or idea suppression tool:
This is the worst case, where any data packets not specifically flagged for fast speed move at a slower rate by being prioritized lower - for example, if network switches hold low priority packets until prioritized traffic has moved, or reserve a portion of their bandwidth for high priority packets regardless of whether any exist. This seems quite unlikely to me due to the sheer public outcry that it would create, and the subsequent backlash of regulation. Similarly, the case of certain ISPs suppressing viewpoints or their competitors' sites - it's a huge potential negative, but very risky for them to try and eventually get caught by the public. Thus, I am not expecting a future where either generic throttling or tuned "viewpoint/competitor" throttling affects CoT, at least not soon, or for very long.

Consequences of throttling being "off" by default, but applied to activities that stress the network:
This is the milder case, and what others have referenced as starting to happen prior to the NN rules. Heavy traffic from a particular source (e.g Netflix, YouTube, Amazon, WoW) or downloading method (e.g. torrents, streaming mp4) is more likely to be targeted for throttling due to its impact on an ISP, and is easier to target since it fits a certain pattern that an ISP could use to discriminate against (throttle) it.
CoT is less likely to be affected under this scheme, because CoT downloads will be such a small fraction of overall traffic on users' ISPs and the backbones (compared to video streaming, Steam downloading, etc), so there'd be little motivation to throttle it when those ISPs have much bigger traffic problems to handle. Only MWM's own ISP is likely to notice game download traffic volume from CoT's servers, and some MMOs choose to use a "cloud"/distributed download provider (such as Akamai) for their game updates, which MWM could consider if their ISP chose to throttle or overcharge. When playing the game, the same logic applies, plus the fact that the amount of data passed between client and server while playing tends to be rather small and efficiently planned by the developers.

Regardless, when developing any MMO downloader, I'd put serious effort into an incremental update system that minimizes the download traffic with each update, sending only the changes. The current uncertainty around NN just adds to the incentives to stay under the radar of the ISPs where possible, or at least minimize packet prioritization fees in the worst case. Even if everyone could count on both NN and competition among ISPs, it's still a better design to help whoever has either limited bandwidth per second, or download limits per month.

I don't feel that repealing net neutrality is a good idea overall for many reasons including the ones I previously linked to.

That disclaimer said, I doubt seriously that CoT specifically is in any danger from the proposed repeal. I will freely state ahead of time that I am by no means an expert and I have not sought verification for my conclusions. Please consider that CoH was originally playable over dial up. It follows that low amounts of data (outside of updates and game downloads) are all that was needed to play real time. So what data NEEDS to be exchanged between the server and client during gameplay? Not to much in my inexpert opinion. Things like location in the zone/instance, facing, direction of movement in 3D, combat actions, queued actions, emotes and text. When reduced to binary, the text may be the biggest single "chunk" of data.

Or to put it another way my inexpert guess is that every registered forum user playing at the same time, may take as much internet bandwidth as about 2 netflix customers viewing something not in HD.

Now let's go to updates before a panic button is pushed. CoH was using a modified bittorrent client for updates during the later part of it's life as I understand it. And you would be correct to remind me that I said the NN concerns started when Comcast was throttling bittorrent traffic without disclosing it to anyone. BUT that was 10 years ago and now bittorrent traffic is FAR more common. Many if not most fortune 500 companies use it daily. And that includes companies like Facebook and Twitter using it for updates. You can't just throttle it under the guise of fighting piracy anymore.

The only thing left is the original game download and there isn't a good business reason to throttle that in my opinion. After all if there's one thing that lootboxes have taught us it's that you can't addict a customer to something if they never get a chance to try it. And these folks value a steady stream of income over a one and done charge.

In closing as I've been up front about where I'm using guesswork, I welcome facts that either back up or disprove my assertions. I'm not seriously expecting to change folks opinions on NN here, just seeking to answer the original question more in depth. Hope it helps!

Honestly, what others have pointed out is probably correct.
Companies like Netflix and Vudu and Amazon and YouTube definitely have to worry if NN gets repealed.
As for MMO's... Blizzard might have had to worry if they still had their 10+ million subscribers. All the "little" MMO's though? Likely not at all.

Really, and i don't want to begin a politic polemic here, but USA should change its president... He's really frightening :/ and he's giving bad ideas to the big commercial groups :/ He doesn't image his influence on the world...
But, to focus on the discussion :) I don't think internet will really change. It's, by now, the first way people can exchance, learn, communicate, find something, buy, etc. So, every people will stan dup if there was something to lose on the internet. But, that's the big corporations which will have an influence on that thing at the end.

Please keep politics OUT of COT. I see this forum as a sanctuary from politics. Thank you.

Thank you. Here in the states, politics invades EVERYTHING.
it is rare to find a place you can just relax and get away from damnable politics.

The US politics invade more than just your own stuff. Up here in Canada Land we hear more about your politics than our own. Honestly I couldn't tell you what our prime minister has been up to, but I could certainly tell you what your clown in chief has been doing.

Really, and i don't want to begin a politic polemic here, but USA should change its president... He's really frightening :/ and he's giving bad ideas to the big commercial groups :/ He doesn't image his influence on the world...
But, to focus on the discussion :) I don't think internet will really change. It's, by now, the first way people can exchance, learn, communicate, find something, buy, etc. So, every people will stan dup if there was something to lose on the internet. But, that's the big corporations which will have an influence on that thing at the end.

Cyclops wrote:
Thank you. Here in the states, politics invades EVERYTHING.
it is rare to find a place you can just relax and get away from damnable politics.
The US politics invade more than just your own stuff. Up here in Canada Land we hear more about your politics than our own. Honestly I couldn't tell you what our prime minister has been up to, but I could certainly tell you what your clown in chief has been doing.

That's because people go "Ooooo...America!" Mention Canada and people go "Pass. They don't even have real money."

Our money is like future money, all plastic-y and partially see through. It might also be that your guys politics are loud bombastic and polarized where as Canada's is more like "wait... We -have- a government?"

Hey! At least it doesnt look like C.T. money anymore.
And Trudeau Jr. was in Asia last I heard (last month?), heh.
Politics is pretty laid back here compared to down south of us, until those darn Yanks start doing things to annoy us!
Stop scaring your Immigrants, we have enough of our own thank you very much.
Keep sending your corporations north in fear of the Trump. We can use the money!
Net Neutrality? What's that? We pay low prices for good speeds, but cellphone costs are insane. Go figure.

And because of Trump we got a bunch of Americans moved up here. Hopefully they'll integrate well and become polite and friendly.
But also if the US ISPs get rid of Net Neutrality down there how long before Bell and Rogers start mucking things up up here?

You mean that NON historic high, pretty standard amount of Americans going north on the yearly basis, moving? Yeah. Nothing different than what the US and Canada see every year. :p

Well, it's more than some previous years, it's just not a record high (2008 I believe it was) and not much more than usual. So, could be a certain town was seen as a good spot, be it for jobs, weather, combination of things, a good agent maybe.

Depends how close to the coast you are, I'd guess. And as long as other countries don't follow America's lead on this everywhere else will carry on as usual. Only we might see a lot of US based tech or internet companies opening up shop overseas as to not be subject to the US's lack of net neutrality.

But also if the US ISPs get rid of Net Neutrality down there how long before Bell and Rogers start mucking things up up here?

It would actually be a bit more difficult for them. All political parties support net neutrality (at least currently), and the CRTC is not as political as the FCC. Plus our 1993 Telecommunications act spells out that telecoms are utilities, and has held that view over multiple challenges over the last few decades. Not saying that it can never happen here too, but it would probably not be as fast or as easy to dismantle.

What may instead happen is that certain services like say Netflix may have to raise their prices to cover being extorted by the US telecoms, so there still may be some effects felt north of the border.

As for our southern neighbours - good luck. If this does get through congress and any legal challenges the big tech players decide to throw at it, your telecoms now have you over a barrel. Maybe it won't be as bad as some say, but then one only has to look at what happens when big corporations are given free reign (especially monopolies or near-monopolies) - they don't exactly have a great history in that regard.

I fail to see why anyone would be celebrating this vote... celebrating decreased freedom of speech, decreased autonomy for entrepreneurial start-ups, and decreased capitalist competition.

Do those celebrating the vote prefer monopolies with no competition, like East Germany had before the wall fell?

Even if these decreases are much smaller than people assume, they're still decreases. Even if it's a sliver instead of a canyon, it's still bad. It's still a move away from competition in business and towards oligarchy.

Even if it's just one tiny baby step in that direction, it's a distinctly anti-personal-autonomy, anti-self-determination, anti-innovation step, so I fail to see why it should be celebrated.

As for our southern neighbours - good luck. If this does get through congress and any legal challenges the big tech players decide to throw at it, your telecoms now have you over a barrel. Maybe it won't be as bad as some say, but then one only has to look at what happens when big corporations are given free reign (especially monopolies or near-monopolies) - they don't exactly have a great history in that regard.

Indeed, the telecoms could have us over a barrel. But that doesn't mean we should up. Even if this Congress doesn't help, the next one might be better - making it important that we vote for candidates who'll restore NN. We can also donate to organizations like the ACLU and EFFF.

I fail to see why anyone would be celebrating this vote... celebrating decreased freedom of speech, decreased autonomy for entrepreneurial start-ups, and decreased capitalist competition.
Do those celebrating the vote prefer monopolies with no competition, like East Germany had before the wall fell?
Even if these decreases are much smaller than people assume, they're still decreases. Even if it's a sliver instead of a canyon, it's still bad. It's still a move away from competition in business and towards oligarchy.
Even if it's just one tiny baby step in that direction, it's a distinctly anti-personal-autonomy, anti-self-determination, anti-innovation step, so I fail to see why it should be celebrated.

none of what you said will come true.
some people's kids. "Decreased freedom of speech?" Really? By the time COT goes live, you will be acknowledging that I was right and nothing happened.

I fail to see the freedom of speech angle. There is nothing that loses you the freedom of speech with this vote. The ones who think that are the reason why people think "Net Neutrality must not be that bad, if they're willing to lie or be delusional like that."

There is no loss of freedom of speech, when any corporation can already say "You can't say that on our forums."

Harder to make your own site to allow that stuff to be said? It won't be a lack of freedom of speech issue, it'll be a lack of money issue.

There is no loss of free speech with this.

However, let's look at that. We don't see Canada with Net Neutrality and they DO have a lack of freedom of speech. UK too! I can only imagine the rest of the EU likely does.

Really? By the time COT goes live, you will be acknowledging that I was right and nothing happened.

So... how long are you willing to wait and see before claiming a "complete victory" over this? And what do "We" get if it turns you that you are wrong?

As I said before, I don't expect this to be an immediate change but rather a very slow one over years.

Brand X wrote:

However, let's look at that. We don't see Canada with Net Neutrality and they DO have a lack of freedom of speech. UK too! I can only imagine the rest of the EU likely does.

That has more to do with how Freedom of Speech is codified in Law and their equivalent to the Constitution than it has to do with NN. Also note that having proper competition makes specific NN rules largely unnecessary.

Maybe not a loss of free speech persay, but a loss of platform, certainly. And a loss of being able to view other points of view. Again there is nothing but the good will of these companies now from completely blocking traffic from sites they don't agree with politically or morally. Only now they need to tell you they're doing that.

The only role government should play in this, in my mind, is to protect citizens from the abuses of monopoly. The Net Neutrality was an attempt to do this. Apparently there is enough competition between satellite and cable that the elected representatives of the people of America feel it is time for the government to step back out of that role. I personally disagree but I never wrote my representatives to tell them my opinion on it, so shame on me.

Time will tell.

—

I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.

The elected officials decided a thing that a high percentage of the people were not in favor of. Seems like lobbying is working as intended.

I have to agree.

To paraphrase Edmund Burke:The only thing necessary for the triumph of special interests is for good men to do nothing.

and to quote Joseph de Maistre:"In a democracy people get the leaders they deserve"

So if everyone wants to let themselves be silently governed, of course the representatives will react to the special interests. We complain after the fact about situations we allowed ourselves to be placed in by our own inaction. Voting once every four years doesn't cut it, and not even 60% of the population even votes then.

—

I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.

The elected officials decided a thing that a high percentage of the people were not in favor of. Seems like lobbying is working as intended.

I have to disagree. Not the overall opinion of the people on Net Neutrality; but this decision was not made by elected officials. It was made by unelected bureaucrats. Congress has not voted on this, and likely won't until the new regulations are officially published.